add_event

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context absent from annotations: the call has an alerting side effect on theses, propagated through suppliers, customers, and competitors of the involved companies. It does not say whether alerts can be suppressed or how materiality gates them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the consequential side effect trailing. No filler, and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter write tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers the essential behavior (record + alert propagation). The remaining gap is operational detail — entity identifier format and whether materiality changes alerting — which the agent must guess.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 57%, and the schema documents title, entities, materiality, and occurred_at with examples. The description adds only indirect meaning, clarifying that the entities parameter is what drives thesis/alert propagation; it says nothing about kind, uri, summary, or how materiality influences alerting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb plus resource ('Record an event') and immediately states the distinguishing side effect: raising alerts on theses via linked companies. That separates it from record_claim, record_evidence, and record_thesis, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the agent infers this is the tool for capturing a discrete occurrence (filing, news, earnings) that may move theses. There is no statement of when to prefer this over record_evidence or record_claim, and no mention of prerequisites such as the entities needing to exist first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.